' GHULAM MAHMOOD QURESHI J.---This R.F.A. Has been directed against the order, dated 14-4-1998 whereby the plaint of the appellant was rejected under Order 7, rule 11(d) of C.P.C.
2. The respondents filed application for rejection of plaint under Order 7, rule 11(d) of C.P.C. On the ground that requisite "Talabs" has not been made in accordance with law and plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7, rule 11 of C.P.C. It is further averred that respondents Nos.6 and 9 to 12 are minors and if any notice has been sent to them, that is illegal and requirement of 'Talab-i- Muwathibat' as well as 'Talab-iIshhad' has not been fulfilled and story of Talabs is false one. The learned trial Court observed in para. 4 as under:--- "Plaint is also silent that from where Munir Ahmad came to know about impugned sale that whether he was present at the time of sanction of mutation or he came to know from some other person of the village. Sale took place on 24-3-1996 whereas plaintiff has deposed his knowledge on 7-7-1996. He has alleged that he was at Ahmadpur East in connection with his employment but he has not mentioned that after 24-3-1996 he went to village on 7-7-1996. Without any specific pleadings in this context it will be presumed that plaintiff was having knowledge of transaction of sale from the day of sanction of mutation and he has not made required. Talabs as laid down in section 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act."
' It was further observed as under:--- "Further suit against minors could not be filed without appointing their Guardian. That defect could not be cured afterward. With all these observations it is proved prima facie that plaintiff has not fulfilled requirements of Talabs as such plaint is hereby rejected under Order 7, rule 11(d), of C .P.0 " .
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. By an order, dated 5-7-1997, the learned trial Court disposed of the petition filed by the plaintiff for appointment of Guardian and directed the appellant/plaintiff to file particulars of mother of minors/defendants Nos.6 and 9 to 12. It is well-settled by now that for the purpose of rejecting the plaint, the averments of the plaint only are to be taken into consideration and not defence of other party or any other material produced by that party.
4. In case of Gyaraialal Jagannathparsad Mor v. Pandit Sitacharan Dubey and others (AIR 1963 Madh. Pra. 164), it was held that where the parties are on issue of certain statements made in their pleadings then the matter cannot be decided alone and the parties must produce evidence to support their averments. In Muhammad Ahmad Butt and another v. Lahore Development Authority and another (PLD 1981 Lahore 153), it was held that for the purpose of rejecting the plaint the Court will see nothing but the contents of the plaint itself.
5. From the perusal of the impugned order of the learned trial Court, it is clear that the appellant/plaintiff was non-suited on the ground that he has not fulfilled the requirement of 'Talabs'. Perusal of para. 4 of the plaint shows that the appellant/plaintiff in detail mentioned about 'Talab-i-Muwathibat' and 'Talab-i-Ishhad' and it is not understandable that from where the learned trial Court, without framing any issue and without recording any evidence, came to conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to fulfil the requirement of 'Talabs'.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Hameed alias Abdul Majeed through Legal Heirs and another (2000 SCMR 314) held as under:--- "The question on which leave was granted in this appeal has recently been considered and decided on 27-10-1999 by a Full Bench comprising 5 Judges of this Court in Civil Appeal No,1004 of 1999 (Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani) in which several judgments of this Court including Khani Zaman v. Shah Hussain and others PLD 1998 Supreme Court 121) and Shafi Muhammad v.
Muhammad Hazar Khan and others (1996 SCMR 346) were considered confirming the principles enunciated in Muhammad Ilyas v. Ghulam Muhammad and another (1999 SCMR 958). The following view was confirmed and reiterated by the Full Bench:--- ' We confirm the view taken earlier by this Court that the pleadings may refer to the material facts but the law does not require the pleadings to contain gist of all the facts and names of witnesses of the plaintiff and that the suit for pre-emption is not an exception to such general principle, which is well-established in our jurisprudence.
' We are, therefore, unable to endorse the view taken in the impugned judgment of the High Court that the requirements of Talab-e-Muwathibat cannot be fulfilled unless details, particulars, date, time and place are also specifically mentioned in the plaint and the names of the persons in whose presence such Talab is made is also mentioned therein."
' In the judgment in case of Haji Noor Muhammad v. Abdul Ghani, it was further observed as follows:--- "In the instant case, plaintiff had specifically referred in the plaint to the two Talabs having been made. The plaintiff could not be non-suited merely on the ground that other details of time and place of the Talabs, and names of witnesses, etc. Had not been specifically mentioned in the plaint.
It may be added that in case defendants/respondents had any difficulty in filing their written statement, they could apply to the Trial Court for further and better particulars by filing an appropriate application under Order VI, rule 5 of C.P.C. No such request was made by the respondents and they filed their written statement without taking any plea therein that they had been prejudiced on account of any details or particulars having not been given in the plaint."
7. Following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned trial Court was not justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII, rule 11(d) of C.P.C. As the case of the appellant is not covered under the abovesaid provisions of law which is reproduced as under:--- "11. Rejection of plaint. The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-- ' Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law."
8. In the light of what has been discussed above, this R.F.A. Is allowed. The order, dated 14-4-1998 is set aside. Resultantly the suit of the appellant/plaintiff shall be deemed to have been pending which shall be decided by the learned trial Court in accordance with law. The parties shall bear their own casts.